A police database with DNA profiles of 24,000 innocent children has provoked a row over privacy.

Since 2004, DNA can be kept on the national database even if those arrested are never charged with an offence.

A Conservative MP, Grant Shapps, is launching a campaign for innocent youngsters to be removed after taking up the case of a 14-year-old boy who was arrested due to mistaken identity. Mr Shapps said: "It is hard to see why the details should be kept on the database. They are innocent children."

The Government defends the current system. However, as political pressure mounted the Association of Chief Police Officers said it is developing guidelines to allow individuals to be removed from the database "in exceptional circumstances".

More than three million Britons have their DNA stored on the database. Since 2002 samples have been linked to evidence at the scenes of 96 murders and 116 rapes.

Click to expand...

This may seem a good idea to many, particularly those involved in policing, but there are 2 reasons to be very suspicious.

1. Any system will have errors. So if your DNA gets mixed up with that of a serial criminal, then be very afraid. You will almost certainly go to prison with your claims of innocence treated with disdain, or lose your home, job and family in an attempt to prove your innocence. It won't be long before serious criminals subvert the system by bribing administrators to switch or destroy samples, or by employing DNA stooges such as drug addicts paid to provide bodily fluids for leaving at crime scenes.

2. The police in particular should view this development with suspicion. The development of so-called revolutionary technology - "network enabled capability" was used as an excuse for drastic cuts in the Armed Forces. Likewise, the Home Office will use the apparent certainty of DNA evidence as an excuse to cut back police numbers. This is an attractive idea from the perspective of a government minister, with armoured motorcade and armed bodyguards, but the more vulnerable among us will take scant reassurance from any conviction arising from DNA evidence if we have been murdered in the commission of the crime. The police force will move from being a preventative and deterrent force - with exceptions, such as protection of politicians and political intelligence-gathering - to an evidence-gathering and investigative agency.

There are many more than two reasons to mistrust this development, MrPVRd. Crime prevention and bringing criminals to justice has always suffered from confusing the definite with the indefinite article. The Old Bill (and not just in the UK) has never been particularly interested in nabbing "the" culprit, but only in nabbing "a" culprit. And that can be anybody who halfways fits the bill (pun intended).
The miscarriages of justice are legion and well-documented. This is a sure indication that other priorities are more important (ostensible reductions in crime figures, promotion for "a job well done", etc) than actually upholding the law.
So if the Old Bill says your DNA places you at the scene, how many of us have the ability and/or facilities to recheck DNA samples?
'Tis a very bad idea. Very bad indeed!

You would not be charged if someone elses dna, filed as yours, was found at a crime scene. On arrest your DNA would be taken again and tested against the crime scene sample, only if the two matched again would you have to start worrying.

You would not be charged if someone elses dna, filed as yours, was found at a crime scene. On arrest your DNA would be taken again and tested against the crime scene sample, only if the two matched again would you have to start worrying.

Trotsky

Click to expand...

As the Krauts say, Trotsky: dein Wort in Gottes Ohr! And I genuinely don't know a fitting English translation for that. So if somebody would like to help me out here.